Originally Posted by BaronVonServersFrance's King (Whoever he is) has no claim whatsoever to the Floridas, and the Spanish Crown forfeited all claim when Charles IV abdicated.

Where do you guys get this strange idea that the Spanish Crown forfeited its colonial rights when Carlos IV abdicated, let alone that West Florida would therefore return to the British crown? I've never heard of any such legal principle or precedent. Setting aside the option of a colony taking matters into its own hands, there were only two legal possibilities, as far as I can see : either you recognize the legitimacy of Carlos IV's abdication, in which case all his rights (including those over West Florida) passed to his successors (Joseph Bonaparte and/or Ferdinand VII), or you don't recognize the abdication, in which case all his rights remained with him de jure. Either way, West Florida remained the territory of whoever was the rightful King of Spain. By 1819, that was indisputably Ferdinand VII, and he ceded the territory to the USA.

The idea is not original to us, it was expressed as early as 1810 by Fulwar Skipwith. (Though he proposed that all the lands belonging to 'His Most Catholic Majesty' would have become 'free lands'),

When His Most Catholic Majesty abdicated, and before the crown passed back to Ferdinand VII (who had, by the way renounced the throne before Joseph's accession), the lands reverted to the Britannic Crown, as would happen with any fief granted by the King that failed for lack of heirs (There was no Most Catholic Majesty to 'inherit' the title both the former holder and the future hold having renounced it).

His Britannic Majesty never restored the 'fief', so it was still part of the Britannic Crown's holdings, not those of Spain when Spain sold what it did not own to the United States (who had already taken the land by force any way!).

I don't pretend that the logic isn't 'a bit odd'. But its no more 'odd' than the claims of sovereignty based on 'discovery and declaration' that made the lands subject to exchange by treaty in the first place.

Originally Posted by BaronVonServersWhen His Most Catholic Majesty abdicated, and before the crown passed back to Ferdinand VII (who had, by the way renounced the throne before Joseph's accession), the lands reverted to the Britannic Crown, as would happen with any fief granted by the King that failed for lack of heirs (There was no Most Catholic Majesty to 'inherit' the title both the former holder and the future hold having renounced it).

But this was not a fiefdom, was it? It was a transfer of sovereignty. In a fiefdom, the king retains ultimate sovereignty and the fief holder owes fealty to that king; but when sovereignty itself is tranferred, the transferee is the successor of the king in all his rights, and the granting king loses all those rights completely. Unless the treaty explicitly said otherwise, the British Crown had no further claim on the territory at all, ever.

Originally Posted by BaronVonServersWhen His Most Catholic Majesty abdicated, and before the crown passed back to Ferdinand VII (who had, by the way renounced the throne before Joseph's accession), the lands reverted to the Britannic Crown, as would happen with any fief granted by the King that failed for lack of heirs (There was no Most Catholic Majesty to 'inherit' the title both the former holder and the future hold having renounced it).

But this was not a fiefdom, was it? It was a transfer of sovereignty. In a fiefdom, the king retains ultimate sovereignty and the fief holder owes fealty to that king; but when sovereignty itself is tranferred, the transferee is the successor of the king in all his rights, and the granting king loses all those rights completely. Unless the treaty explicitly said otherwise, the British Crown had no further claim on the territory at all, ever.

I'm not sure about its status as fief (I doubt it was done purely as fiefdom, His Catholic Majesty wasn't likely to become Vasal to His Britannic Majesty). I haven't been able to find a copy of the Treaty of Versailles between His Britannic and His Most Catholic Majesties.

However, as the transfer of Soveriegnty was to 'His Most Catholic Majesty', when there ceased to be a 'His Most Catholic Majesty' soveriegnty would have had to be vested in someone.

King George III was still alive, still 'His Britannic Majesty', and the last remaining Lawful Holder of the land. With no other lawful heirs to receive it, why would soveriegnty not return to His Majesty King George III?

("The so who else would it go to? " defense) Not Bonaparte - you don't gain Sovereignty by Theft (at least not from a European at the time). Not Ferdinand VII - he had renounced it. Not the 'Local Inhabitents' - Europeans didn't care what those folks thought, AND the subjects don't get to become Soveriegns with out at least the permission of the King. And the Current claimaints of Florida ignored them, and crushed their republic.

However, let me be sure to clarify for you and others that the 'Louisiana Purchase' did NOT include all of what is currently Louisiana.

Yes, it included a whole lot more land in the Midwest than is currently part of the state of Louisiana, but it did NOT include anything east of the Mississippi, specifically it did not include the 'Florida Parishes' currently claimed as part of the State of Louisiana.

France's King (Whoever he is) has no claim whatsoever to the Floridas, and the Spanish Crown forfeited all claim when Charles IV abdicated.

No offense intended, I was operating under the 'Better safe than sorry', plan.The Louisana State Quater shows the Florida Parishes as part of the Louisana Purchase, so many people are confused on the issue.

Originally Posted by BaronVonServersHowever, as the transfer of Soveriegnty was to 'His Most Catholic Majesty', when there ceased to be a 'His Most Catholic Majesty' soveriegnty would have had to be vested in someone.

It doesn't work like that! The words "His Catholic Majesty" were used because that happened to be the style of the Spanish king at the time, but when a treaty gives rights to a head of state, it is giving them to whoever holds the headship of that state in future, regardless of title. It is a treaty between states, of which the individual monarchs are merely the transient embodiments, not between individuals with particular titles.

Quote:

King George III was still alive, still 'His Britannic Majesty', and the last remaining Lawful Holder of the land. With no other lawful heirs to receive it, why would soveriegnty not return to His Majesty King George III? ("The so who else would it go to? " defense) Not Bonaparte - you don't gain Sovereignty by Theft (at least not from a European at the time).Not Ferdinand VII - he had renounced it.

Without getting into the particulars of the rights of Joseph, Carlos IV and Ferdinand VII, the one person where the rights indisputably did not lie was King George III, because he had lawfully and permanently surrendered them. If one makes an unconditional gift, one has no right whatsoever to reclaim it, even if the subsequent inheritance of the recipient's rights are disputed. Possession of the rights to Florida was solely and entirely a question of determining who was the legitimate head of state of Spain.

Originally Posted by pauljlukWithout getting into the particulars of the rights of Joseph, Carlos IV and Ferdinand VII, the one person where the rights indisputably did not lie was King George III, because he had lawfully and permanently surrendered them. If one makes an unconditional gift, one has no right whatsoever to reclaim it, even if the subsequent inheritance of the recipient's rights are disputed. Possession of the rights to Florida was solely and entirely a question of determining who was the legitimate head of state of Spain.

M. le Baron,

As seldom as I agree with Paul, i think he's right on this one. If not, all treaties with a nation would become null and void when it changed government. It's obvious HM's government doesn't think that way, since they still hold the Treaty of Windsor (1386) with Portugal to be valid and Portugal has gone from a monarchy to a masonic republic to a Catholic authoritarian State to a secular Jacobin republic without voiding the Treaty.

Originally Posted by BaronVonServersFulwar Skipwith was a US diplomat, including Consul-General to France and conversant with treaties. He even helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 as Consul-General.

Not wishing to offend, but I think a diplomat that helped draft treaties would know about what the words in treaties meant.

You'd be amazed at how diplomats and politicians can rationalize their actions when it suits their agenda

But even if he was right, and I think few other diplomats would agree with him, not even he claimed that the loss of the colonies to Spain would mean that they reverted to the British crown. Unless the treaty explicitly says otherwise, the British crown had permanently surrendered its sovereignty.

Since it is such a crucial document to the DBWF claims, it would be nice if someone there would transcribe the treaty and add it to the website.

Originally Posted by BaronVonServersFulwar Skipwith was a US diplomat, including Consul-General to France and conversant with treaties. He even helped negotiate the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 as Consul-General.

Not wishing to offend, but I think a diplomat that helped draft treaties would know about what the words in treaties meant.

You'd be amazed at how diplomats and politicians can rationalize their actions when it suits their agenda

And I think they still are! Our leadership is not above applying a certain amount of 'selectivity' to the facts

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauljluk

But even if he was right, and I think few other diplomats would agree with him, not even he claimed that the loss of the colonies to Spain would mean that they reverted to the British crown. Unless the treaty explicitly says otherwise, the British crown had permanently surrendered its sovereignty.

He claimed reversion to the 'natural state' and then declared that to be 'free men'. We prefer to think of the 'Natural State' as being under the Monarchy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pauljluk

Since it is such a crucial document to the DBWF claims, it would be nice if someone there would transcribe the treaty and add it to the website.

I and others have looked for it. It doesn't appear to be available.

-- CONSPIRACY ALERT -- Perhaps that's because it does contain 'reversion clauses'. The Treaty between Spain and France for the Louisiana Territory is also hard to locate, it has a 'non transferable' clause, which would have made the sale by France to the US illegal. Maybe the Republics have 'hidden' the papers because they expose the 'irregularities' in these land deals. -- CONSPIRACY ALERT OFF --

I would like to see the treaty too, not that it would change my desire to see the restoration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen in Right of Florida, but so that I could see if we are totally 'barking up the wrong tree'.

Our Solicitor General wouldn't comment beyond 'The Claims made by the Dominion's Government are just that, Claims, it is for the Jury to determine matters of Fact.", - A 'cop-out' if you ask me, but perhaps it is the only correct reply when we don't have a copy of the document in question available.

Personally I think the claims have a 'just so' feel to them but that's all I need to support a position I already hold.

If it the Treaty were found, and it did have a 'reservation clause' that returned the lands in Florida under 'certain conditions' it wouldn't matter one bit. The US wouldn't let Florida go - It took it by force the first time, and did the treaty later (almost 10 years later), and Her Majesty's Government wouldn't contend with the US over a strip of coastal territory of limited value, and unlike the Falklands, a population, that in the main, doesn't consider itself under Her Majesty's Protection.

I am one of the most active (if not the most active) supports of the Dominion of British West Florida, as an Ideal, and a Goal. I don't expect to see a restoration, but I do manage, on occasion, to convince myself, that it just might be possible someday.

Originally Posted by pauljlukWithout getting into the particulars of the rights of Joseph, Carlos IV and Ferdinand VII, the one person where the rights indisputably did not lie was King George III, because he had lawfully and permanently surrendered them. If one makes an unconditional gift, one has no right whatsoever to reclaim it, even if the subsequent inheritance of the recipient's rights are disputed. Possession of the rights to Florida was solely and entirely a question of determining who was the legitimate head of state of Spain.

M. le Baron,

As seldom as I agree with Paul, i think he's right on this one. If not, all treaties with a nation would become null and void when it changed government. It's obvious HM's government doesn't think that way, since they still hold the Treaty of Windsor (1386) with Portugal to be valid and Portugal has gone from a monarchy to a masonic republic to a Catholic authoritarian State to a secular Jacobin republic without voiding the Treaty.

Jovan,This treaty doesn't appear to cover lands ceded by the United Kingdom to "His Most Faithful Majesty".

The last time it was invoked, was not Portugal still a Monarchy?

But to your point, I'm quite comfortable admitting (for myself alone) that Treaties are quite often nothing but frameworks to hang 'legal arguments' on, and that the invocation of the terms of the treaty of Versailles (1783), by the Dominion of British West Florida may be little more than a 'legal fig-leaf'. The treaty of 1783 may be nothing more than a pleasant fact in a sea of unpleasant reality.

It's a nice thought guys but it will never happen. If we were to accept a sovereign the only suitable choice would be HRM Elizabeth of England. Not because I'm particulary found of out of touch, elderly monarchs as opposed to young, new exciting ones to begin a reign but because I am a legitimist. There are no "princes of the blood" for an American dynasty. There is no nobility and barely a recognized class system. Often our wealthiest citizens act with less decorum then our poorest. Therefore we would have to get on board with Canada and be entered into the Commonwealth. The only and I mean only alternative to that would be to offer the throne to a Brittish royal. Prince Harry for example. But we can't just give it to a Bush or Clinton as they are NOT royal. I just don't know how it would be sold to the American public. No I think our Republic will be here to stay.

It's a nice thought guys but it will never happen. If we were to accept a sovereign the only suitable choice would be HRM Elizabeth of England. Not because I'm particulary found of out of touch, elderly monarchs as opposed to young, new exciting ones to begin a reign but because I am a legitimist. There are no "princes of the blood" for an American dynasty. There is no nobility and barely a recognized class system. Often our wealthiest citizens act with less decorum then our poorest. Therefore we would have to get on board with Canada and be entered into the Commonwealth. The only and I mean only alternative to that would be to offer the throne to a Brittish royal. Prince Harry for example. But we can't just give it to a Bush or Clinton as they are NOT royal. I just don't know how it would be sold to the American public. No I think our Republic will be here to stay.

While I agree that at least for the foreseeable future the republic is here to stay, if it was not why in God's name would I accept Elizabeth as Queen? I live in territory never ruled by thre British Crown (as do you, sir, having checked your profile) and have no desire to see them take over. The Bourbons of France and of Spain and the Iturbides of Mexico may have a claim to the West, but the House of Windsor has none!

Jovan,A couple of thoughts that would have bearing on why might find HM Queen Elizabeth II more acceptable than a French or Spanish Monarch:

1) The Original 'Claim' of the Crown of England for the lands of Virginia where from Sea to Sea. Granted, the French did at least do some 'exploration', and the French laid claim to the land more recently than GB, but the Crown's Charter for Virginia would have put Kansas and Missouri in the Virginia Colony. The Land was at one time 'ruled' by the same Throne Her Majesty currently holds.

Well and if you want to go above and beyond original charters here's another reason. The United States of America under its present borders is the result of the expansion by thirteen Brittish Colonies that were once under English sovereignty. Therefore if were were to enter a commonwealth it would be to the English crown. The part of the United States I live in was at one time part of the Lousianna territory and that was bitterly won and lost for France and Spain many times back and forth. Therefor "America" which was Brittish would in all her parts be under the Brittish crown. France had posession of these territories last and sold them to America which were once colonies of Brittain and the rest of the country falls into similar fashion from Spain and Russia.

Insert Photos

Web address (URL)

Image URL

If your URL is correct, you'll see an image preview here. Large images may take a few minutes to appear.
Remember: Using others' images on the web without their permission may be bad manners, or worse, copyright infringement.